PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL - Utah · Invocation and Pledge Invocation: Parker Grahams – Boy Scout Troop 729 Pledge: Luke Allen and Matthew Cook ... Flag Retirement Ceremony Patriotic

Provo City Council Meeting Minutes – June 7, 2013 Page 1 of 23

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL Redevelopment Agency of Provo Regular Meeting Minutes 5:45 PM, Tuesday, June 07, 2016

Room 200, Municipal Council Chambers

351 West Center

Opening Ceremony

Roll Call

THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL AND ADMINISTRATION WERE PRESENT:

Council Member David Sewell Council Member Vernon K. Van Buren

Council Member Gary Winterton Council Member David Harding

Council Member David Knecht Council Member George Stewart

CAO Wayne Parker Deputy City Attorney Brian Jones

Council Executive Director Clifford Strachan

Excused: Conducting:

Council Member Kim Santiago

Council Vice-Chair David Sewell

Invocation and Pledge

Invocation: Parker Grahams – Boy Scout Troop 729

Pledge: Luke Allen and Matthew Cook – Boy Scout Troop 729

Shannon Bingham, Timpanogos Neighborhood Chair, gave a presentation on the service project

recently held in their neighborhood. She reported the following:

More than 200 volunteers from a BYU young special interest stake participated;

More than 50 local neighborhood volunteers participated;

Cleaned up in several neighborhoods which included installing three sprinkler systems,

planting 17 trees, and trimming trees, and hauling dead trees away.

Painted a crosswalk at 500 North 400 West for better access to North Park and the

recreation center;

Received more than $4,500 in cash donations;

Local grocery store donated food and water for the project;

Provo City Forestry Department donated trees;

Received a matching grant from the Neighborhood Program for the project.

She stated the project was a great success and thanked all those involved.

Approval of Minutes


By common consent the May 3, 2016; May 17, 2016; and May 19, 2016 council meeting

minutes were approved by the council.

Presentations, Proclamations and Awards

1. A presentation by C-SPAN

Vice-Chair Sewell introduced Ashley Hill, Producer of C-SPAN Cities Tour, and invited her to

comment on their visit to Provo. Ms. Hill reported that C-SPAN was a TV network created by

the cable industry to provide viewers with direct access to their lawmakers. The network was

one of a kind because they were not subsidized by use of tax payer or government money and

they did not have any editorializing. The C-SPAN Cities Tour spotlighted unique cities and they

were in Provo that week to produce pieces to highlight the area’s unique history. The program

would cover the founding of Provo City; the excavation of the Provo Temple; the BYU Museum

of Paleontology; the BYU Special Collection Library, specifically the Reed Smoot Papers and

Yellowstone Park Papers collection; and the Crandall Printing Museum. They would also

include interviews with several local authors, business owners, and government officials. The

programming would air July 2nd

and 3rd

and would also be available on their website for viewing.

2. A presentation by Paul Warner regarding Freedom Festival 2016

Paul Warner, Executive Director of America’s Freedom Festival at Provo, discussed some of the

events for the 2016 Freedom Festival, which included:

Mayor’s Prayer Breakfast

Stadium of Fire (featuring Tim McGraw and Patti Austin)

Flag Retirement Ceremony

Patriotic Service (Elder D. Todd Christofferson of the LDS Church)

Baby Contest (in conjunction with Orem City Summerfest)

Freedom Awards Gala (honoring the late Justice Antonin Scalia, US Supreme Court)

Balloon Fest

Grand Parade

Mr. Warner anticipated more than 300,000 spectators for the parade. The Freedom Festival

brought in about $19 million through hotels, food, etc. He thanked the Provo City Council and

Administration for their support of this event.

Public Comment

There were no public comments.

Mayor's Items and Reports

3. A public hearing on an ordinance adopting a Tentative Budget for Provo City

Corporation for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2016, and ending June 30, 2017, in

the amount of $200,614,858, setting a public hearing to consider a proposed change

in the Certified Tax Rate, and amending the Consolidated Fee Schedule and Provo

City Code Section 4.04.060. (16-054)


Vice-Chair Sewell introduced the item and explained this was the first of two public hearings to

be held concerning the proposed FY 2017 budget. Another public hearing would be held in two

weeks so the council would not vote on this item during the meeting

Dustin Grabau, Provo City Budget Officer, presented. Mr. Grabau reported a budget retreat

would be held with the council on Thursday, 16 June, 2016 to discuss the budget in detail. He

explained that the proposed three percent property tax would only be on Provo’s share of the

property tax. For example, for a home valued at $205,600 (median home price in Provo) would

amount to a $3 increase per year.

Chair Sewell invited public comment.

Pam Jones, Provo, understood that elected officials had a legal right to raise taxes but wanted to

know what moral right they had to take more and more money from the citizens. The city’s

rationale that inflation lowered their spending ability also affected the citizens, especially those

retired and on fixed incomes. She said one way to reduce the city’s budget without raising taxes

would be to take one penny from every dollar budgeted. Or, the city could take money from one

budget to offset increases in another budget. She would like the city to submit a budget with no

increase at all.

Porter Hoskins, Provo, asked for clarification on a Deseret News article that reported the

property tax would be raised three percent and the average water bill would be raised $11 dollars

per month or $132 per year as opposed to just a $3 yearly increase.

Mr. Sewell explained they were two different items. The proposed property tax increase (as

explained by Mr. Grabau) would apply to a relatively small portion of the property tax and

would be around $3 for the average homeowner. The other reference was to proposed increases

to public utility fees which included water, waste water, sanitation, and storm water.

There were no more public comments.

Mr. Stewart stated that taxes were used to provide city services. He felt that property taxes did

not need to be increased as long as there were items in the budget that could be reduced. He said

the budget committee recommended reducing the transfer to the golf course by $50,000 because

they had a $130,000 fund balance. They also recommended eliminating the $100,000 funding

for Downtown Provo Inc.

Mr. Winterton noted that the savings in the golf course was because of hard work and efforts on

behalf of the Parks and Recreation staff. He felt that any extra money at the golf course should

be used to fund capital improvement projects that would improve and benefit the golf course and

were not included in the budget. The council needed to look at how cuts affect services that

continue to increase in price. Last year’s property tax increase of two percent was the first

increase in 22 years.

Mr. Knecht was aware of, and was concerned about, people on fixed incomes. He suggested

residents look at Utah County’s circuit breaker tax abatement program for citizens on fixed

incomes. The county looked at income, age, disabilities, and veteran service. If the resident was


more than 65 years old Utah County might reduce or completely eliminate the property tax based

on circumstances.

Vice-Chair Sewell announced that a budget retreat would be held on Thursday, 16 June at 10

a.m. The council would go into detail with each department about their budgets. The citizens

were invited to attend the meeting or watch the meeting online.

4. A public hearing on Resolution 2016-20 appropriating $150,000 in the General Fund

to repair the roof on the building that houses the Community Development

Department and Fire Station #1, applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2016.

(16-062)

Dustin Grabau presented. The proposed resolution would appropriate $150,000 to replace the

roof of the Community Development and Fire Station No. 1 building. This project would

increase the safety and value of the current building.

Vice-Chair Sewell invited public comment. There was no response to the request.

Motion: Council Member Vernon K. Van Buren moved to approve Resolution

2016-20 appropriating $150,000 for the roof. The motion was

seconded by Council Member David Knecht.

Roll Call Vote: The motion passed 6:0 with Council Members Harding, Knecht, Sewell,

Stewart, Van Buren, and Winterton in favor. Council Member Santiago

was excused.

5. A public hearing on Resolution 2016-21 appropriating $307,500 in the General Fund

to make purchases related to necessary capital projects in the Recreation Center,

applying to the fiscal year ending June 30, 2016. (16-064)

Dustin Grabau presented. The proposed resolution was based on the recreation center exceeding

estimated revenues and usage. The original operating budget was $4.1 million and they were on

track to generate in excess of $4.5 million. The appropriation would come from the excess

revenue and would be used for necessary improvements to the recreation center to better serve

the citizens.

Some of the proposed improvements included:

Aquatics and Outdoor Pool Projects - $178,500

o Additional Fencing;

o Purchase a Myrtha Line for the wave pool to reduce staff time for maintenance;

o Additional Sidewalk Access (to allow ADA access to facilities on outdoor plaza);

o Additional speakers for safety messages, announcements and special events.

Recreation Center Guest Services - $129,000

o Floor Covering;

o BMI Machines;

o Racquetball Seating;

o Chair Tables for Community Side;

o Mobile Computing Solution.


Vice-Chair Sewell invited public comment.

Jeff Rose, Provo, commented on the last item (budget) and asked why the city continued to

subsidize the golf course. He asked why the fund balance from the golf course could not be used

for a project at the recreation center.

Mr. Henderson responded to the question by stating subsidizing a golf course was not a rare

thing for a municipality. The subsidy for the golf course was 10 percent of its operating cost.

The other 90 percent was covered by the golf course fees. That was a reduction of 25 percent

from when the city took back control of the golf course from privatization. The proposed budget

included a $23,000 reduction in the subsidy.

David Czierpinski, Provo, asked if they considered reducing the cost of family memberships. He

lived with extended family members that were developmentally disabled and took them to the

recreation center to help with their disabilities. He asked if family memberships could be

expanded to include extended family members, not just immediate family.

Mr. Henderson replied that they could reduce the fees but that would reduce the revenues used to

provide maintenance and upgrades. Their fees were based on market studies and were

competitive compared to other city recreation centers. He said the city had a “Plus One”

program at the recreation center that allowed any family member or friend to get in free if they

were providing assistance for a special needs patron.

Mr. Winterton said the city looked at the recreation center fees every year and tried to find a

balance between keeping the fees competitive to give more people the opportunity to attend

while trying to bring in enough revenues to properly maintain the building so that patrons had a

good experience.

Mr. Knecht pointed out that before the recreation center was built the city had three different

facilities they were subsidizing at a cost of around $800,000 yearly for operations and

maintenance. Mr. Henderson said that with the age of the buildings the subsidy would reach $1

million by the time a new recreation center would have opened. Mr. Knecht added that the older

facilities were bought and paid for. The bond for the new recreation center was $3 million per

year. The new center had been a great success and a benefit for the community. While the

recreation was showing an operating surplus, in the big picture, we also paid millions each year

on the bond in order to have the new facility.

Mr. Harding noted that the citizens chose to enter into a bond for the recreation center. He was

thrilled they were covering their operational expenses and it was a wonderful success. We look

at the subsidies for the golf course but we were not paying any bonds on the golf course. So,

from a different perspective, the golf course might be doing better. While not everyone used the

recreation center and the golf course, we live in a better community because the services were

provided.

Motion: Council Member George Stewart moved to approve Resolution 2016-

21 as written. The motion was seconded by Council Member Vernon

K. Van Buren.




was excused.

6. A public hearing on Resolution 2016-22 approving the reprogramming of

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to fund the Sidewalk

Improvement Project on 400 West Street. (16-065)

Dan Gonzalez, Redevelopment Agency, presented. The proposal was to reprogram $75,366

from the Down Payment Assistance Program and $69,634 from the Commercial Façade

Renovation Program to help fund sidewalk improvements on 400 West between Center Street

and 100 North. The property owners in that area would not be contributing to the improvements.


In response to a question from Mr. Knecht, Mr. Gonzalez reported the project qualified for

CDBG funding because it was in a low to moderate income area.


22 as written. The motion was seconded by Council Member David

Harding.



was excused.

7. A public hearing on Resolution 2016-23 to reprogram Community Development

Block Grant (CDBG) funds to provide for the relocation of a transformer to finalize

the remodel of the Startup Building. (16-073)

Mr. Gonzalez stated that the proposal was to reprogram $44,814 from Small Business Loans and

$5,186 from Down Payment Assistance Loans to provide a grant in the amount of $50,000 to the

Taylor family for relocation of a transformer in the Startup Building.

Mr. Gonzalez reported that over the past few years the Startup Building had been remodeled to

provide small, individual offices for early stage and startup businesses. During the remodel it

was determined that a transformer, located within the existing building, would need to be

relocated outside the building because it did not meet current building code regulations and

created a dangerous situation.

Tom Taylor, representing the Taylor family, owners of the Startup Building, was invited to

comment. He said the Startup Building had been up and going for four years and had been able

to make a substantial difference and contribution to the development of small business and

startup organizations. They also held a lot of community events at their location. He viewed

this as a public/private partnership where both the city and the Taylor family contributed to the

success of the projects.


When the renovation of the building began the city loaned the family $200,000. The family had

spent a lot more than that on the project and felt they had generated a lot of public good in the

space. The building permit was approved without the need to move the transformer but, since

that time, Provo City Power has required the transformer be moved for safety purposes. Mr.

Taylor noted the power connection was running underneath the building and then going to the

transformer through the center of the building. They were requesting a block grant in order help

pay for the relocation. The cost of the relocation would be more than the $50,000.

David Walter, RDA Director, noted a $200,000 loan was given in order to help build the co-

worker environment with $105,000 from the RDA and $95,000 from Provo City’s general fund.

Mr. Taylor had been making the payments as scheduled. The $50,000 would be reprogrammed

from CDBG funds. He reported that CDBG allowed cities to use the funds for job creation.

Wayne Parker, Provo City CAO, said that the Taylor family had made remarkable contributions

to our community. Our contributions to this project were small compared to the value we had

received. The remaining members of the Business Development Corporation Board

recommended the council approve a grant rather than a loan.


Mr. Jones noted the resolution stated the city would use those funds to provide a grant and/or a

loan in the amount of $50,000. Part I of the resolution stated the mayor was authorized to

reprogram the funds for the purposes described in the resolution. If the council wanted to be

specific about whether it was a grant or a loan they should amend Part I of the resolution.

In response to a question from Mr. Winterton, Mr. Walter replied that Provo City had an active

involvement in the startup community. Dixon Holmes, Director of Economic Development, and

his staff were active in meeting with different representatives for this type of project. One of the

benefits of the public/private partnership with the Taylor family was that the city was helping to

provide the co-working, meeting, and reception space for these startup businesses.

Mr. Gonzalez pointed out that the relocation of the transformer was required by the city, the

Taylor family did not create this problem.

Motion: Council Member David Knecht made the following motion. Whereas

this is a city owned transformer he moved to reprogram up to $44,814

from Small Business Loans and $5,186 from the Down Payment

Assistance loans project to fund a grant to be used for relocation of the

transformer. The motion was seconded by Council Member George

Stewart.

Mr. Harding felt the public/private partnership was a more efficient model than trying to create

our own city space. He wondered if, in the future, they could look at creating a more formal pool

of money to invest into these types of activities. They could open up the pool for people to

qualify for the funding. With a little more investment the city might get more return for job

creation and economic development.

Vice-Chair Sewell called for a vote on the proposed amendment to the resolution.




was excused.

Vice-Chair Sewell called for a motion on the amended resolution.

Motion: Council Member Gary Winterton moved to approve Resolution 2016-

23 as amended. The motion was seconded by Council Member David

Knecht.



was excused.

Recess Municipal Council meeting

Motion: Council Member David Harding moved to recess as the Municipal

Council and convene as the Redevelopment Agency at 7:39 p.m. The

motion was seconded by Council Member David Knecht.



was excused.

Redevelopment Agency of Provo

8. A public hearing on a resolution adopting a budget for the Redevelopment Agency of

Provo City Corporation in the amount of $4,292,168, for the fiscal year beginning

July 1, 2016, and ending June 30, 2017. (16-055)

Mr. Grabau explained that the Redevelopment Agency budget was included as an appendix to

Provo City’s proposed budget. Discussion of this budget would be included in the budget retreat

scheduled for next week.

Chair Stewart invited public comment. There was no response to the request.

Mr. Jones noted that no action was required on this item.

Adjourn Redevelopment Agency and convene as Storm Water Special Service District

Motion: Board Member David Sewell moved to adjourn as the Redevelopment

Agency and convene as the Storm Water Special Service District at

7:41 p.m. The motion was seconded by Board Member Gary

Winterton.

Roll Call Vote: The motion passed 6:0 with Board Members Harding, Knecht, Sewell,

Stewart, Van Buren, and Winterton in favor. Board Member Santiago

was excused.


Storm Water Special Service District

9. A public hearing on a resolution adopting a budget for the Provo City Storm Water

Special Service District in the amount of $4,196,915 for the fiscal year beginning July

1, 2016, and ending June 30, 2017. (16-056)

Mr. Grabau noted this budget was also included as an appendix in Provo City’s tentative budget

documents. The proposed budget fell under the purview of Public Works and was under

consideration for rate increases. This budget was included in the five-year versus seven-year rate

increase discussion held earlier in work session.


Adjourn Storm Water Special Service District and reconvene as Provo City Municipal Council

Motion: Council Member Vernon K. Van Buren moved to adjourn as the Storm

Water Special Service District and reconvene as the Municipal Council

at 7:42 p.m. The motion was seconded by Council Member Harding.



was excused.

Policy Items Referred from the Planning Commission

10. A public hearing on Resolution 2016-24 approving the Provo City Moderate Income

Housing Plan for 2014-2015. City-wide Impact. (16-0003GPA)

Brian Maxfield, Provo City Planning Manager, presented. The Moderate Income Housing Plan

was not a plan for the future but a report on past action. The plan was a mandated bi-annual

report from Utah State reporting efforts made to reduce, mitigate, or eliminate local regulatory

barriers to moderate income housing and actions taken to encourage preservation of existing

moderate income housing. Mr. Maxfield stated the city had met the requirement of the state

concerning those goals.

Mr. Knecht noted he had spoken earlier with Mr. Maxfield about the discrepancies in some of

the figures in the report concerning how HUD used their five categories to rate communities and

create an opportunity index. The discrepancy showed Provo City as a 7.5 and later as a three.

Since Mr. Maxfield was not sure if the discrepancies had been resolved, Mr. Knecht did not feel

good about approving the plan.

Mr. Maxfield explained that the discrepancies concerning the CDBG statistics were not part of

the state report, but were federal requirements. Those discrepancies would need to be resolved

for the housing element update and yearly federal reporting updates. Moderate income housing

was a ratio based on 80 percent of an area’s median income so it could fluctuate over the years.

The housing element update would identify the means to preserve moderate housing.


Mr. Knecht said he had watched a video of a speech before congress asking them to defund the

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Act. Examples were given where residents of Chicago

were forcibly relocated in order to meet goals of that program. Mr. Maxfield replied that, as far

as he was aware, that had not happened in Utah. The major purpose in Utah was to make sure

every city did their fair share in providing for a variety of housing types.


Motion: Council Member David Knecht moved to approve Resolution 2016-

24, the Moderate Income Housing Plan for 2014-2015. The motion

was seconded by Council Member David Harding.



was excused.

11. A public hearing on Ordinance 2016-13 amending Provo City Code Sections

14.32.020 and 14.32.140 to allow for reuse of an existing commercial building in the

Residential Conservation (RC) Zone, specifically for the building generally located

at 389 East 200 North. Joaquin Neighborhood and City-Wide Impact. (15-0020OA)

Robert Mills, Provo City Planner, presented. The applicant owned property at the corner of 400

East 200 North which included a residence and an existing commercial structure that was not in

use. The original application was to allow a small grocery store in the commercial structure.

Residents in the neighborhood suggested that another use would be to put a bicycle collective in

the commercial space. The applicant agreed and the request was amended to include bicycle and

sales use at that location. The amendment would apply city-wide but there were only two areas

in the city that would be impacted by the ordinance. The other structure (a commercial space

attached to a residential space) was located at 300 South 600 West in the Franklin Neighborhood.

The ordinance did not allow for new construction of commercial structures in the Residential

Conservation zone. Provo City staff recommended approval and the Planning Commission

voted unanimously to approve the request.

Mr. Jones handed out an amended version of the proposed ordinance and reviewed those changes

with the council members (copy attached to permanent minutes).

In Section 14.32.140 (Other Requirements) it eliminated 14.32.140(6) (Uses in Existing

Commercial Structures) and combined that section with 14.32.140(5) (Grocery

Standards).

Amended 14.32.140(5)(a) to limit the floor area for grocery stores to 2,900 square feet.

Attached residential structures would not count toward the total square footage.

Mr. Mills stated he was not sure about the square footage of the structure in the Franklin

Neighborhood. He recommended changing the language in 14.32.140(5)(a) to state the existing

square footage rather than limiting it to 2,900 square feet.

The applicant, Susan Christensen, was invited to comment. She purchased the property in 2014

and had been working with the city since that time to have it rezoned. As stated earlier, they

initially wanted a grocery store; however, by renting to the bike collective it would increase


bicycle riding in the neighborhood and provide a location to help people purchase and repair

bicycles.

Vice-Chair Sewell invited the neighborhood chair to comment.

Bill Graff, Joaquin Neighborhood Chair, felt this was a perfect project for this area and had

strong support from neighborhood. He recommended the council approve the ordinance.

Susan Kruger-Barber, Joaquin Neighborhood Vice-Chair, stated that nearly everyone in the

neighborhood liked the proposal.


Austin Taylor, resident of the Joaquin neighborhood and Director of Provo Bicycle Collective,

stated the organization had been in Utah since 2002. Their main purpose was to promote cycling

as a form of transportation. They partner with Provo and BYU police departments to receive

unclaimed bicycles, refurbish them, and sell them at a low cost or give to people in the

community that need transportation. They also educate people on how to ride safely and how to

repair bicycles. He felt this would benefit the Joaquin neighborhood because it was densely

populated with limited parking. They were working towards reducing the need for parking as

more people would rely on bicycles for transportation.

Adam Kay, student at BYU, stated that bicycles were something the community needed and

wanted. The collective created a symbiotic relationship with the local bicycle shops (four in

Provo) to work together to help residents obtain the parts necessary for their bicycles. Their

organization helped fill the needs of students and families that could not afford cars and used

bicycles for their transportation. They hosted a weekly class for children to teach bike mechanic

skills. Most important was the volunteerism that the collective brought to the community.

Brian Gordon, resident of Provo for 31 years, felt the bicycle collective was a great organization.

However, the issue before the council was whether a commercial structure should be allowed to

be used in a residential zone. He was concerned about providing enough parking to support the

business. He owned a home across the road from the location and stated there were already

parking problems, including people parking right in front of his driveway. The previous use of

the property had been a triplex which would have required six off street parking spots and they

did not have any. Approving a commercial building would require off street parking which they

did not have. Their current location, which they had outgrown, had a lot of off street parking

and now they wanted to move to a location without any off street parking. He felt the collective

would be a benefit anywhere in the city, including the Franklin property, which had a parking lot

for off street parking. This ordinance should only be approved if the fronts of neighbor’s homes

did not become the collective’s parking lot.

Susan Kruger-Barber, Provo, had been involved in a neighborhood walk through to document

parking violations. The area, especially above 500 North, was in crisis mode. Joaquin needed a

parking permit program. She suggested putting up no parking signs in front of driveways.

During their walk through only one area on 800 North had vehicles parking in areas that had no

parking signs. She felt the bike collective would take cars off the street and brings bikes to the

community. This would also help the air pollution in the city by reducing vehicle usage.


Oliver Kallas, Joaquin neighborhood, had owned a home there for 11 years. He lived without a

car for eight years relying solely on public transportation and bikes while attending grad school

at the University of Utah. He felt parking was one of the last things they would have to worry

about.

Jeff Rose, Provo, supported the proposal. He stated that people patronizing the bike collective as

well as the volunteers and workers had a commitment to transportation by bicycle rather than

cars. Only in the most severe scenario would people use other sorts of transportation to go to the

bike collective. Most use their bicycles because they did not have other forms of transportation.

Hopefully, those that drove to the collective would not park in front of driveways. He supported

the proposal.

Kennedy, Tarrin, and Tasha Neubert supported the bike collective move to the new location.

Ms. Neubert, mother of the three children listed above, stated they had been going to the bike

collective for the past several months. Her children had learned a lot of things about working on

bicycles. She would not be riding to the bike collective with all her children so they would drive.

She loved the program and would be willing to park farther away and walk if they needed to.

Tatum Neubert, Orem, said the collective needed to move from their current location because

they had too many bikes in their current location. If they moved they would have more room to

spread out the bikes and more people could work on them.

Wayne Leavitt, Joaquin Neighborhood Vice-Chair, acknowledged there was a parking problem

in the neighborhood. Most of the problem was from students trying to park near a BYU bus ride

station. The location would be helpful to the university and to the elementary school

community. They had forged a working agreement with Provo Peaks Elementary School to

implement a program on bike safety and bike rules. This program should encourage bike use in

the neighborhood in the future and felt the bike collective would be a small part of the parking

problem.

Elias Flores, Provo, noted that the Provo City Bicycle Master Plan designated 200 East as a

bicycle pathway to connect BYU to downtown and the Provo FrontRunner station. The new

location for the bicycle collective would be ideal and allow people to become part of the

transportation master plan. He recommended approving the ordinance because the neighborhood

would benefit from it.

Katrina Skidmore, Maeser neighborhood, volunteered at the bike collective and purchased a bike

from the collective. She recently had her bike seat stolen but could not replace it because the

current location was too far to ride without a seat. The current location would be better for

students.

Trevor Christensen, resident of Provo for 27 years, reported that on the Daily Herald’s podcast

the Mayor said the bike collective was one of the best run advocacy groups in Provo. He felt this

was a good group that empowered people and sent a strong message that bikes were great and

cities needed more of them. He encouraged the council to vote for this measure.


Brandon Nelson, BYU student, encouraged the council to support this measure. He pointed out

how well run the bike collective was. Mr. Taylor was made the manager about a year ago and he

had done a fantastic job of keeping the collective clean, well-kept, and organized. Mr. Taylor

interacted very well with the children and community members that volunteered at the collective.

Parking was a concern that had been brought up but they would like to use this as an opportunity

to show how much they could work with the community.

Heather Skabelund, Franklin neighborhood, stated she biked with her three and five year olds.

Even though she lived an equal distance from the old location and the proposed new location

they rarely went to the collective but they would go a lot if it was in Joaquin. They primarily

biked to the recreation center, parks, and the library so the new location would be more central

for them. She felt that would be true for a lot of people.

Hugh Van Wagonen, 340 East 100 North, was excited to see the building put to good use and to

promote and advocate for bicycle use. As the collective took shape in the building there would

be plenty of opportunity for people driving by to realize that bicycles could work in that area.

Anything to promote bicycle awareness and culture as an alternative mode of transportation, not

only for air quality but for their health, was a fantastic thing. He was in favor of the proposal.

Vice-Chair Sewell invited Brian Gordon (resident across the street from the proposed location)

and Joaquin Neighborhood Chair Bill Graff to make final comments.

Brian Gordon stated he appreciated the bike collective and said they stood for great principles.

But they, even by their own admission, have said they would try to avoid adding to the parking

problems. With all the other parking problems in the area this would just compound the

problem. Ultimately, all they could do was try. The collective would succeed no matter where

they went.

Mr. Graff said they did have a major parking problem that the neighbors had been working on.

They have had great difficulty working with the City. He challenged Mr. Parker to work with

them in that neighborhood. He empathized with Mr. Gordon because he also had people parking

in his driveway. The neighborhood was ready, willing, and able to work on the parking problem.

They had possible solutions ready to present but they needed someone to work with.

Vice-Chair Sewell stated other neighborhoods had approached the city with parking permit

programs so he encouraged Mr. Graff to bring something to the City for consideration.

Community Development would be the best place to start.

Mr. Knecht said it was time to come up with a workable parking permit plan for that area. He

recommended they contact Provo City and request signs limiting parking to one or two hours

during business hours be placed in front of the business. At night the parking would be open to

everyone.

Mr. Harding stated that when he spoke with neighbors about increased parking problems he was

surprised with the lack of negative responses. He understood Mr. Gordon’s concern about

basing the decision on the appropriate use for the property and not whether the bicycle collective

was a good fit. Once the property was rezoned the use could change so they needed to make sure

the ordinance would make sense for the two locations it would affect. They should not minimize


the impact to parking because this change would have an effect on the parking. Emphasizing

that the use of bicycles as a mode of transportation might reduce the need for parking might be

true generally; however, he felt it would compound the parking problem in that location. Putting

up signs in front of the business which limited the parking to one hour or having diagonal

parking would possibly help mitigate the problems. He supported the appropriate commercial

use in the neighborhood and felt the project was compatible with the neighborhood. He hoped

that the neighbors understood that this would have an impact on parking so they needed to work

with the city to mitigate parking in that area and throughout the Joaquin neighborhood.

Mr. Jones noted there were three versions of the proposed ordinance presented to the Council.

Version A – submitted in the materials and reviewed by the planning commission. He

did not recommend approving that version because language in subparagraphs (5) and (6)

was duplicative and made the code longer.

Version B – hard copy handed out during meeting where no substantive changes were

made. The ordinance was simplified to put all duplicative language in one subparagraph.

Version C – shown on the screen in anticipation of council taking out the square footage

limitation. The sentence about square footage was removed and it kept the language

stating the residential part of the building could not be used for commercial purposes.

Mr. Jones stated that if one of those versions satisfied what the council wanted they could make a

motion to approve one of those three versions.

Motion: Council Member David Knecht moved to approve version C of the

ordinance which took out the square footage and as shown on the

screen. The motion was seconded by Council Member Vernon K. Van

Buren.

Mr. Jones clarified that 14.32.140(5)(a) stated “Uses in existing commercial structures shall be

confined to the current floor area…” Property owners could not exceed the current floor area

and they could not count the residential part of the building when they were calculating the

current floor area.

After council discussion on the language in 14.32.140(5)(a) of version C, Mr. Jones proposed

amending the ordinance to read as follows:

“Uses in existing commercial structures shall be confined to the current floor

area of the existing commercial portion of the structure. If the existing

commercial structure is a noncomplying structure it shall be subject to the

provisions of Section 14.36.050 of this Title.”

Mr. Harding made the following motion:

Motion: Council Member David Harding made a substitute motion to amend

Version C as just discussed and currently shown on the screen. The

motion was seconded by Council Member David Knecht.

Mr. Van Buren asked for clarification that the commercial square footage of the structure would

be as of the date of passage of the ordinance (in case there had been changes to the commercial


square footage in the past). Mr. Jones agreed saying the law would apply to the existing

commercial structure as of the ordinance adoption date.

Vice-Chair Sewell called for a vote on the motion to amend the ordinance per option C.



was excused.

Vice-Chair Sewell called for a motion to approve the amended version of the ordinance.

Motion: Council Member David Knecht moved to approve the amended version

C of Ordinance 2016-13. The motion was seconded by Council

Member David Harding.



was excused.

Vice-Chair Sewell called for a short recess at 9:04 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:11 p.m.

12. A public hearing on Ordinance 2016-14 amending the Zone Map Classification of

approximately 0.34 acres of real property, generally located at 177 South 1000 West,

from Residential Conservation (RC) Zone to Del Coronado PRO (PRO-20) Zone.

Franklin Neighborhood. (15-0013R)

Aaron Ardmore, Provo City Planner, presented. About one year ago the developer submitted an

application to tear down a deteriorated single family home and build a fourplex on this property

just south of an existing fourplex. The council denied the request and recommended the applicant

come back with a different proposal. The new proposal would be to tear down the single family

home and build a duplex at that location. Staff recommended approval of the request. The

development would improve the condition of the property, provide a new sidewalk, create a new

park strip planter on the corner, and increase the number of parking spaces in that area.

Boyd Martin, representing the applicant Kevin Reisch, was asked to comment. He noted this

project began in August 2014 by reaching out to Kathryn Allen the Franklin Neighborhood Chair.

They were anxious to improve the corner and felt this development would be a vast improvement

to the neighborhood because of the current condition of the home. It also addressed several

public works concerns by improving drainage in the area.


Motion: Council Member David Knecht moved to approve Ordinance 2016-14

as written. The motion was seconded by Council Member David

Harding.




was excused.

13. A public hearing on Ordinance 2016-15 amending Provo City Code Section

14.50(20).040 to reduce the minimum project area size from 0.9 acre to 0.34 acre in

order to build a new duplex on the property generally located at 177 South 1000

West, in the Residential Conservation (RC) Zone. Franklin Neighborhood. (15-

0014OA)

Mr. Ardmore reported this item was related to the zone map classification just approved. The

acreage requirement for the zone was written specifically for a project in the Maeser

neighborhood. The acreage needed to be reduced from .9 to .34 so that it would apply to the new

parcel. Mr. Ardmore stated this would be the only parcel affected by the change in acreage

because the Del Coronado PRO zone was a special zone.


Motion: Council Member Gary Winterton moved to approve Ordinance 2016-

15 as written. The motion was seconded by Council Member David

Knecht.

Mr. Harding expressed concern that there were a number of homes throughout his district that

were in similar condition. He said they needed to be careful about tearing down rundown single

family homes and building projects with increased density.

Mr. Ardmore stated that future land use for this piece of property was low density residential so

this type of development was expected.

Mr. Knecht noted that the Planning Commission approved the project 6:0 with conditions. One

of those conditions was conditional use for the dumpster location. Mr. Ardmore replied that the

Planning Commission had approved the conditional use and project plan.

Vice-Chair Sewell called for a vote on the motion.



was excused.


approximately 0.46 acres of real property, generally located between 800 North and

880 North and between 250 West and 440 West, from One-Family Residential

(R1.6A) to Health Care Facilities Zone (HCF). North Park Neighborhood. (16-

0006R)

15. A public hearing on Ordinance 2016-17 vacating the public streets 250 West

(between 800 North and 940 North) and 880 North (between 300 West and

Freedom), adjacent to property owned by IHC Health Services for future hospital


expansion located in the R1.6A (One-Family Residential) and HCF (Health Care

Facilities Zones. North Park Neighborhood. (16-0001SV)

Vice-Chair Sewell indicated Items No. 14 and 15 would be discussed together since they were

for the same project.

Dustin Wright, Provo City Planner, presented. Item No. 14 referenced 0.46 acres of property

Intermountain Health Care (IHC) purchased for future hospital expansion. The property was

located within the current Health Care Facilities (HFC) zone. The zone map for the property

would be rezoned from R1.6A to HCF to match the adjacent property. A condition of the

rezone was that the parcel would be combined with surrounding property to form a single parcel

in the HFC zone.

Referencing Item No. 15, Mr. Wright stated that all the properties with frontage along the streets

identified in the ordinance were owned by IHC. The street vacation would not have any impact

on the surrounding area. The same condition, to combine all properties into a single parcel,

applied to the street vacations also. Mr. Wright explained that when the original subdivisions

were created the streets were dedicated to the city. When we vacate a street the city would deed

the property back to the current property owner. There would be no transfer of funds.

In response to a question from Mr. Knecht, Mr. Wright replied that the rezone had met all of the

CRC conditions.

Mr. Wright reported there was one property within the HCF zone that had not been purchased by

IHC which would remain in the R1.6A zone.

Matt Lowder, representing IHC, was present to answer any questions. There were no questions

for Mr. Lowder.


In response to questions and concerns from the council, Mr. Wright indicated the planning

commission approved the rezone with a condition that the plats be combined with surrounding

parcels. He stated the applicant intended to combine the plats but did not want to go through the

time and expense of combining and recording the plats if the rezone was not approved. The city

would accept the plat before the property had been rezoned if they were combining property. If

they were dividing property the city would require the rezone to take place before the plat was

approved.

Mr. Wright stated the application for the rezone lasted for one year from the date they were

submitted. If the applicant did not meet that condition (combining the plats) they would have to

submit a new application for the rezone. The applicant was going through the same process with

other parcels that had been rezoned. The overall intent was to have the hospitals existing parcel

plus all the additional properties combined into one plat.

Adam Jensen, architect with IHC, stated they were not concerned with adding that condition.


Mr. Jones proposed an amended version of the ordinance (version B) that added language at the

end of Part I stating the zone change was contingent upon the applicant combining the described

parcels into one parcel with surrounding property. The ordinance only became effective upon

that action taking place. The amended version was shown on the screen.

Vice-Chair Sewell called for motions on Item No. 14

Motion: Council Member George Stewart moved to amend the original draft as

shown on the screen. The motion was seconded by Council Member

David Harding.



was excused.

Motion: Council Member George Stewart moved to approve Ordinance 2016-

16 as amended. The motion was seconded by Council Member David

Knecht.



was excused.

Vice-Chair Sewell called for motions on Item No. 15

Motion: Council Member David Harding moved to approve Ordinance 2016-

17 vacating the public streets 250 West (between 800 North and 940

North) and 880 North (between 300 West and Freedom). The motion

was seconded by Council Member George Stewart.



was excused.

Council Items and Reports

16. Resolution 2016-25 approving an amendment to a Development Agreement

regarding property generally located at 660 East 300 North in order to amend the

covenants, conditions, and restrictions required by the Agreement. (16-072)

Deon Turley, owner of the property along with Robert Turley and Joan Hutchinson, presented.

They were requesting to change the requirement in Exhibit D of the development agreement

(approved ten years ago with a previous owner) that required both twin homes planned for the

property be owner occupied for a period of 15 years from the time the covenants, conditions, and

restrictions (CCR’s) were recorded. They proposed amending the agreement to read “for at least

three years following the effective date of the CC&R’s one dwelling unit shall be occupied by

the owners.” They originally wanted the fifteen year owner occupied requirement removed.

Some members of the council were concerned so they looked at other properties in the area with


similar restrictions. They felt a three year requirement would address some of the council

concerns. They were planning on moving into one of the homes and Joan Hutchinson was

planning on living in the second home.

Mr. Winterton stated that the new owners were finding it difficult to find financing with the 15

year occupancy requirement. The Turley’s broker, David Barton (Rocky Mountain Mortgage

Loans Branch Manager), was not present so his comments were read into the record by Ms.

Turley:

“We could not find any verbiage about owner occupancy requirements from

any of the lenders specifically. However, the secondary department was more

concerned about how a lengthy owner occupancy clause would affect

marketability in the future and, more specifically, how it would affect a

potential appraised value of the home or the project in the future since an

appraisal would need to find comparable properties with similar stipulations of

an owner occupancy clause in the surrounding area or neighborhoods. They

felt that could make the project less desirable to finance since it would limit the

options or ability to finance the property now and in the future.”

Mr. Turley said they were told that up to three years would not be a problem to finance but after

that it could create problems.

In response to a question from Mr. Van Buren about only one unit being owner occupied Mr.

Turley replied that the owner of the other twin home was the one that requested the three year

requirement. He stated they planned on being in the other twin home for a long time. The

council, during work session, expressed concern that the property remain maintained after the

owner occupancy requirement expired. He stated since they were planning on living in the home

for a long time that should address the council’s concern.

Ms. Turley stated there were other properties in the area that required only one year of owner

occupancy and other areas where there was no owner occupancy requirement (in PRO zones).

They were asking to be treated like others.

Mr. Turley reported that a previous council recommended the 15 year owner occupied

requirement be included in the development agreement. The previous owner preferred not to

have that restriction. He understood that the reason the lot had been vacant for ten years was

because of difficulties finding financing with the fifteen year restriction.

Mr. Jones explained that the requirement in the new development agreement was to record

CC&R’s that included the owner occupancy requirement. Technically, the 15 years with the old

agreement never started because the CCR’s were never recorded.


Bill Graff, Joaquin Neighborhood Chair, encouraged the council to endorse the three year owner

occupancy requirement and approve the resolution.

Wayne Leavitt, Joaquin Neighborhood Vice-Chair, supported the resolution.


Motion: Council Member Vernon K. Van Buren moved to approve Resolution

2016-25, amending the development agreement. The motion was

seconded by Council Member David Harding.

Mr. Stewart stated it was always difficult to remove owner occupancy restrictions because they

were used to build up neighborhoods. He would agree to approve the amendment since they

needed to limit it to three years in order to obtain financing.

Vice-Chair Sewell called for a vote on the motion.



was excused.


approximately 4.18 acres of real property, generally located at 1040 South 1000 East,

from Heavy Commercial (CM) and Residential Conservation (RC) to Low Density

Residential (LDR).. Spring Creek Neighborhood. (13-0003R)

Bill Peperone, Provo City Assistant Director of Community Development, presented.

Community Development requested this zone change for several reasons.

1. There had been some version or another of applications submitted on this property since

March 2013.

2. The number of staff hours (hundreds) had gone beyond the amount of any application

fees that had been paid.

3. In January of 2016, after the council repealed the MDR zone for this property, they felt

that having the city initiate the zone change, independent of a site plan, would be a good

way to proceed. As a site plan came forward, if it met the conditions of the zone, the

staff would recommend approval.

Mr. Peperone said the staff had been comfortable with the LDR zone for some time. The

southeast neighborhood plan had been under review for a year and this area had shown the

property as LDR.

The site plan submitted to the Planning Commission, just to show them what could be done with

the property, had 63 town home units with 20 percent open space and met the requirements of

the zone. The plan also met the setback and parking requirements. The site plan was simply an

illustration to show that a project could be built that would meet all the requirements of the zone.

Mr. Peperone indicated the report of action and findings from the Planning Commission included

the specific reasons for approving the zone change.

Vice-Chair Sewell noted that even though this action was initiated by Community Development,

and the Planning Commission recommendation was for the zone only, there was an applicant

proffering a development agreement.

Mr. Jones stated that legal staff, under review by Community Development staff, reached out to

the owner and verified that the development agreement proffers were still in place. To solidify


that, a pre-reviewed version of the agreement had been signed by the developer. If the ordinance

was approved the mayor would sign the development agreement. If approved, the effective date

of the zone change would be tied to execution of a development agreement.

Vice-Chair Sewell invited Steve Turley, property owner, to comment. He stated this was the

same development proffered six months ago, consistent with what the council wanted. The

number of units in the development would change because of the new zone.

Vice-Chair Sewell invited Mary Millar, Spring Creek Neighborhood Chair, to comment. Ms.

Millar asked the council to consider the effect on the quality of life for those in the area. She felt

the LDR was a good fit for the area but asked if there was any chance they could decrease the

number of units, even if it was only 10 or 15 percent. One of the property owners on the north

and south sides of Carpenter Seed was willing to sell her property to the developer. This would

allow use of a driveway already established on State Street and lessen the impact of those

residents on 1060 South.


Mr. Knecht wanted to go on record stating that the city had explored and asked UDOT about

access onto State Street. It was news to him that the adjacent property owner might want to sell

because it would provide an access to State Street. One access they were looking at was just

north of Carpenter Seed but the access had to line up with another street onto State Street. In

years past the applicant had tried to find the access and received the same response from UDOT

as the city had. They realized it was better to have some connection to a collector or arterial road

rather than using existing roads through the neighborhood.

Mr. Harding said they had recently passed the Franklin Neighborhood Plan which laid out a

vision for future land use. Would the city be initiating additional requests for rezones based on

neighborhood plans? Mr. Peperone replied that it depended on the neighborhood and situation.

In Joaquin they were comfortable with a mass rezoning of hundreds of properties north of 700

North to BYU campus. He did not remember any residents protesting that rezone. In other cases

the neighborhood wanted the rezoning to happen as requests came in.

Vice-Chair Sewell stated he liked the new plan and felt it was better than the previous plan. He

was concerned about traffic on 1060 South and the left hand turns onto State Street from 1140

South. They had heard several different traffic projections so, if they went to the more

conservative estimate of 60 percent of traffic on 1040 South, the new zone would reduce the

number of trips to less than 500 per day.

David Graves, Provo City Engineer, reported that the 500 number was not a volume number on

local streets, it had to do with street widths. If it was under 500 a different street width standard

could be applied to local streets. If more than 500 there were larger pavement widths that were

used. The local street standard was contained in the transportation master plan. Local streets

were 1,400 to 1,800 vehicles per day, even 24 foot streets. He noted that on a street with vehicle

trips between 400 and 500 trips per day there would be less than one vehicle per minute. He

stated a sidewalk would be built on 1060 South.


Mr. Graves said they were always looking for traffic calming measures in any site design,

particularly in residential areas. Those measures could include bulb outs, narrower type

intersections, etc. He did not encourage speed bumps on city streets or in private developments.

Vice-Chair Sewell reported that Chair Santiago asked him to express her concern about some of

the doors in the development facing the garage area but liked this plan better than anything she

had seen to this point. She did not indicate how she would have voted on this ordinance.

Motion: Council Member George Stewart moved to approve Ordinance 2016-

18 as written and displayed on the screen, including references to tying

the effective date of the rezone to execution of the development

agreement. The motion was seconded by Council Member Vernon K.

Van Buren.

Roll Call Vote: The motion passed 5:1 with Council Members Knecht, Sewell, Stewart,

Van Buren, and Winterton in favor and Council Member Harding

opposed. Council Member Santiago was excused.

18. Resolution 2016-26 approving the selection of an audit firm to provide audit services

and authorizing the Council Chair to execute a contract with the audit firm. (16-049)

Clifford Strachan, Council Executive Director, presented. State law required the city to conduct

an annual audit of its financial statements by a certified public accountant. The report must be

submitted to the Utah State Auditor’s Office within six months after the end of the fiscal year.

The council reviews the auditing agreement every five years so a request for proposal was sent

out a few months ago. We received eight proposals and interviewed three applicants. The

amended resolution (as shown on the screen) would approve and appoint the firm Hansen,

Bradshaw, Malmrose, and Erickson (HBME) and authorize the council chair to execute a

contract. The five-year total would be $220,000.

Motion: Council Member David Knecht moved to accept the changes as the

draft resolution before them. The motion was seconded by Council

Member George Stewart.



was excused.


26 authorizing the selection of Hansen, Bradshaw, Malmrose, &

Erickson to provide audit services for Fiscal Year 2016-2017 through

Fiscal Year 2020-2021 and authorize the council chair to execute a

contract in conformance with the RFP and the response of the audit

firm. The motion was seconded by Council Member Gary Winterton.



was excused.


Adjourn

Motion: Council Member Gary Winterton moved to adjourn the meeting at

10:30 p.m. The motion was seconded by Council Member David

Harding.



was excused.

Documents

PROVO MUNICIPAL COUNCIL - Utah · Invocation and Pledge Invocation: Parker Grahams – Boy Scout Troop 729 Pledge: Luke Allen and Matthew Cook ... Flag Retirement Ceremony Patriotic